按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！
cannot let it remain part slave and part free； as the fathers of the
government made it； he asks a question based upon an assumption which
is itself a falsehood； and I turn upon him and ask him the question；
when the policy that the fathers of the government had adopted in
relation to this element among us was the best policy in the world；
the only wise policy； the only policy that we can ever safely
continue upon that will ever give us peace； unless this dangerous
element masters us all and becomes a national institution；I turn
upon him and ask him why he could not leave it alone。 I turn and ask
him why he was driven to the necessity of introducing a new policy in
regard to it。 He has himself said he introduced a new policy。 He
said so in his speech on the 22d of March of the present year； 1858。
I ask him why he could not let it remain where our fathers placed it。
I ask； too； of Judge Douglas and his friends why we shall not again
place this institution upon the basis on which the fathers left it。
I ask you； when he infers that I am in favor of setting the free and
slave States at war； when the institution was placed in that attitude
by those who made the Constitution； did they make any war？ If we had
no war out of it when thus placed； wherein is the ground of belief
that we shall have war out of it if we return to that policy？ Have
we had any peace upon this matter springing from any other basis？ I
maintain that we have not。 I have proposed nothing more than a
return to the policy of the fathers。
I confess； when I propose a certain measure of policy； it is not
enough for me that I do not intend anything evil in the result； but
it is incumbent on me to show that it has not a tendency to that
result。 I have met Judge Douglas in that point of view。 I have not
only made the declaration that I do not mean to produce a conflict
between the States； but I have tried to show by fair reasoning； and I
think I have shown to the minds of fair men； that I propose nothing
but what has a most peaceful tendency。 The quotation that I happened
to make in that Springfield Speech； that 〃a house divided against
itself cannot stand；〃 and which has proved so offensive to the judge；
was part and parcel of the same thing。 He tries to show that variety
in the democratic institutions of the different States is necessary
and indispensable。 I do not dispute it。 I have no controversy with
Judge Douglas about that。 I shall very readily agree with him that
it would be foolish for us to insist upon having a cranberry law here
in Illinois； where we have no cranberries； because they have a
cranberry law in Indiana； where they have cranberries。 I should
insist that it would be exceedingly wrong in us to deny to Virginia
the right to enact oyster laws； where they have oysters； because we
want no such laws here。 I understand； I hope； quite as well as Judge
Douglas or anybody else； that the variety in the soil and climate and
face of the country； and consequent variety in the industrial
pursuits and productions of a country； require systems of law
conforming to this variety in the natural features of the country。 I
understand quite as well as Judge Douglas that if we here raise a
barrel of flour more than we want； and the Louisianians raise a
barrel of sugar more than they want； it is of mutual advantage to
exchange。 That produces commerce； brings us together； and makes us
better friends。 We like one another the more for it。 And I
understand as well as Judge Douglas； or anybody else； that these
mutual accommodations are the cements which bind together the
different parts of this Union； that instead of being a thing to
〃divide the house；〃figuratively expressing the Union；they tend to
sustain it； they are the props of the house； tending always to hold
it up。
But when I have admitted all this； I ask if there is any parallel
between these things and this institution of slavery？ I do not see
that there is any parallel at all between them。 Consider it。 When
have we had any difficulty or quarrel amongst ourselves about the
cranberry laws of Indiana； or the oyster laws of Virginia； or the
pine…lumber laws of Maine； or the fact that Louisiana produces sugar；
and Illinois flour？ When have we had any quarrels over these things？
When have we had perfect peace in regard to this thing which I say is
an element of discord in this Union？ We have sometimes had peace；
but when was it？ It was when the institution of slavery remained
quiet where it was。 We have had difficulty and turmoil whenever it
has made a struggle to spread itself where it was not。 I ask； then；
if experience does not speak in thunder…tones telling us that the
policy which has given peace to the country heretofore； being
returned to； gives the greatest promise of peace again。 You may say；
and Judge Douglas has intimated the same thing； that all this
difficulty in regard to the institution of slavery is the mere
agitation of office…seekers and ambitious Northern politicians。 He
thinks we want to get 〃his place；〃 I suppose。 I agree that there are
office…seekers amongst us。 The Bible says somewhere that we are
desperately selfish。 I think we would have discovered that fact
without the Bible。 I do not claim that I am any less so than the
average of men； but I do claim that I am not more selfish than Judge
Douglas。
But is it true that all the difficulty and agitation we have in
regard to this institution of slavery spring from office…seeking；
from the mere ambition of politicians？ Is that the truth？ How many
times have we had danger from this question？ Go back to the day of
the Missouri Compromise。 Go back to the nullification question； at
the bottom of which lay this same slavery question。 Go back to the
time of the annexation of Texas。 Go back to the troubles that led to
the Compromise of 1850。 You will find that every time； with the
single exception of the Nullification question； they sprung from an
endeavor to spread this institution。 There never was a party in the
history of this country； and there probably never will be； of
sufficient strength to disturb the general peace of the country。
Parties themselves may be divided and quarrel on minor questions； yet
it extends not beyond the parties themselves。 But
does not this question make a disturbance outside of political
circles？ Does it not enter into the churches and rend them asunder？
What divided the great Methodist Church into two parts； North and
South？ What has raised this constant disturbance in every
Presbyterian General Assembly that meets？ What disturbed the
Unitarian Church in this very city two years ago？ What has jarred
and shaken the great American Tract Society recently； not yet
splitting it； but sure to divide it in the end？ Is it not this same
mighty； deep…seated power that somehow operates on the minds of men；
exciting and stirring them up in every avenue of society；in
politics； in religion； in literature； in morals； in all the manifold
relations of life？ Is this the work of politicians？ Is that
irresistible power； which for fifty years has shaken the government
and agitated the people； to be stifled and subdued by pretending that
it is an exceedingly simple thing； and we ought not to talk about it？
If you will get everybody else to stop talking about it； I assure you
I will quit before they have half done so。 But where is the
philosophy or statesmanship which assumes that you can quiet that
disturbing element in our society which has disturbed us for more
than half a century； which has been the only serious danger that has
threatened our institutions；I say； where is the philosophy or the
statesmanship based on the assumption that we are to quit talking
about it； and that the public mind is all at once to cease being
agitated by it？ Yet this is the policy here in the North that
Douglas is advocating； that we are to care nothing about it！